Saturday, November 21, 2009
Knox is the typical American female spoiled brat who now faces a life sentence for her role in the murder of her British roommate Meredith Kercher.
Knox sealed her own fate when she concocted several different versions of the what happened the night of Kercher's murder. Most disturbingly, Knox tried to implicate a local African business owner, Patrick Lumumba, of the crime but he was released after law enforcement officials cleared him and Knox's story changed. For some reason, the American media all but ignored this detail about Knox's bigoted act in an effort to preserve sympathy for her.
This case is controversial because Knox is a relatively attractive, affluent, and white American female who is presumed to be innocent of such crimes by other Americans. Europe tends to be more realistic in their approach to judging women, and they tend to let the facts be their guide.
It is a forgone conclusion that Knox will be convicted and sent to prison for a long time. This case gives Men's Rights Advocate like me a sense of justice when American females get their due for heinous crimes that they may have gotten away with in the USA.
It also serves as notice to other American women that they cannot participate in crimes, implicate innocent people, change their stories and expect to be let off the hook like in the United States.
May the soul of Meredith Kercher rest in peace when Knox is finally locked away for good.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Inspired Onlooker: These will see you as an interesting person to get to know, or a paradigm to emulate. These people are well-intentioned and the females are most open to dating black men. Think of these as the "Wow, a successful black man, he must be a remarkably intelligent and charming individual to get where he is today" crowd.
The Validated Onlooker: These individuals may be very successful themselves or well on their way to being successful. They see the successful black man as a validation of their view that all people can make it given the right opportunities and life choices. Think of these as the "We are all the same given the right circumstances in which to thrive" crowd.
The Patronizing Onlooker: While not ill-intentioned, these individuals only see you through the lens of stereotype. This is the person that does not pick up on your behavior, dress, and mannerisms, but your skin color. These individuals may seek to develop rapport with you by uttering some hip hop slogan, or by abruptly patting you the back as if you are some athlete who just scored. This is the "I wonder which he is, an athlete or entertainer" crowd. In my experience, this type seems to be most prevalent in Asian and East European countries and those with high poverty rates.
The Resentful Onlooker: This is a person of which you should be wary. They may simply watch you with an expressionless demeanor, or they may actually engage you in conversation in an effort to discover what you are all about. Whatever the case, they do not like you as you remind them of their own failure and insecurity. They are the "How in the world can this black guy have his stuff together, and I can't?" They need to be let off the hook by learning that you are a cheat, a fraud, or a fool and that is what they seek to discover by interacting with you. They may try to provoke you with some verbal slight or insult to gauge your reaction, or they may simply watch your every move. They represent the disingenuous, smiling stranger that you know has an ulterior motive.
The Self-Preservationist Onlooker: This is the most dangerous of all. This is the person that seeks to destroy you or your well-being because his/her world view does not comport with what you represent when compared with what they represent. Your very presence is interpreted as a threat to their relevance. These individuals range from the unemployed, to the lonely skinhead who wants you out of his country because women pay more attention to you. But, more often, they are the black female co-workers who sees you as a challenge to their positions in the organization. Just as the skinhead seeks to destroy your physical being, the black female self-preservationist onlooker seeks to destroy your reputation, your respect in the eyes of others, and your place as a credible contributor in the organization. Whether it is by luring you into conflict or setting you up for termination, this person wants you demolished as a threat to her social position.
It takes experience to quickly determine if someone embodies one of the above profiles. Sometimes people exhibit elements of more than one profile, and yet others can drift from one into another with time.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The nation was captivated with the disappearance of Yale grad student Annie Le. I recall seeing interviews with Yale students that they always felt they had to be careful in the Yale university "neighborhood" and now they feel that way more so.
Now that it is has been established that the killer was white, preppy Raymond Clark, the outcry has been muted to non-existent. It is obvious that this is not the face of the killer in the minds of most Americans.
Now that we know he is white, it is interesting to hear the rationalizations about why he resorted to killing her. Mental illness, extreme distress, etc, everything but out and out evil.
Consider for a moment if the killer would have been non-white. We would have seen an outcry for the killer's head immediately. I don't think that Annie Le would approve of the pass granted by the court of public opinion to Raymond Clark. I hope that the courts do their job and put this individual away for the rest of his life. The misery he will endure in prison will be far greater in duration than the pain he inflicted on poor Annie.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Three recent events are the bigotry I predicted for President Obama the night he won the election. The explosive health care "town halls" designed to undermine the success of the President's initiative on emotional grounds, the anger at the President's plan to address school children, and the visceral "You lie "outburst of Representative Joe Wilson during Obama's health care address to Congress. How dare Obama win the presidency and deign to expect to accomplish anything! An accomplished Obama further whittles away at the white supremacist agenda so every effort must be made to undermine his success and dignity in their minds.
There are some Americans who refuse to acknowledge the dignity of the office on racial grounds alone. This begs the question. Would these recent occurrences have taken place if Obama were white? Surely not. As time goes on, a subset of these collectivist half-wits will get used to Obama's presidency. But most of these people will remain entrenched in the benighted mentality that they don't even know afflicts them.
Fortunately, most Americans are not moved by this nonsense and recognize it for what it is worth. But any suggestion that America is no longer gripped by it's white supremacist past falls upon deaf ears when this stuff continues.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The dispute between Henry Louis Gates and arresting Officer Crowley took an uptick when President Obama joined the fray. Now, legions of cops are lending their support to Officer Crowley in light of all the heat he is taking.
What the media is missing are the true issues that are going on here: Gates' lack of civility to the Officer and the American rebuttable presumption of black guilt. Had these two factors not been at play in the incident, there would likely have been no arrest and no explosion into a larger debate on race.
Professor Gates is a man of high esteem. He therefore likely has a bit of a chip on his shoulder that rubbed the investigating officer the wrong way. Any one with common sense understands that an officer has considerable discretion to arrest or grant a warning. If you insult or show disrespect to an officer, you will likely be arrested when the officer could have used discretion to not arrest you.
As for Officer Gates, he is American, born and bred, and he likely embodies the notion that blacks represent a criminal risk higher than that of whites. For those Americans without keen skills of discernment, like the neighbor who called the police when she saw a "black man" (Gates) fumbling on Gates porch, ANY black man is a criminal risk, not just the obvious ones.
Officer Gates extra scrutiny of the black Gates and Gates' arrogance that he was somehow immune to the extra scrutiny gave rise to this matter.
Both men are digging their heels in and maintain the error of the other party.
Yes, America does still have an obsession with caste and stereotype. To the extent that we deny it exists is the extent we will be disappointed when incidents like this rear their heads.
Oh yes; President Obama, stick to health care reform and the economy. You should not be in the weeds on issues of this nature!
Thursday, July 2, 2009
In the 1960's Danial Patrick Moynihan penned the The Negro Family: A Case For National Action. In it, he detailed what was considered sociological heresy for that era. That the matriarchal and pathological characteristics of black women was responsible for the underachiever of many black males in America. His report has generally been vindicated as the years past, especially his description of the toll black women have on black males.
In an effort to further describe Moynihan's point, I submit the following:
Black women often bring black boys into unhealthy, fatherless households often with substance abuse as aggravating factors.
Black women are the overwhelming sources of physical and mental child abuse against black boys. Have you seen the movie "Antwone Fisher" which was based on a true story?
Black girls in school are the most critical of promising black boys who might otherwise turn out to be intelligent or clean-cut.
Black teenage girls are the most likely to sexually reward black boys who engage in fast, illegal money and the gaudy "bling, bling" lifestyle, setting them up for ruin in adulthood.
Black women at work often find any black man to be a threat to the status quo in the pecking order. Most of us recall the conniving Anita Hill who tried to derail Justice Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court? Even if Justice Thomas did do something inappropriate, what was the real reason for her coming forward?
Black women are the most angry and hateful at the sight of a Black Man with a woman of any other ethnicity.
Black women in the service industry tend to reserve the most discourtesy for successful black men out of resentment and class envy. It is the "You might have money, but you ain't no better than me" attitude.
Black women are hazards to the health of otherwise smart, ambitious, healthy, and successful black men. They are the most obese population group in the world and their ignorance of basic nutrition contributes to high black male rates of hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, obesity with all have bases in childhood eating habits.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
They appear on the news every now and then. Individuals like the Korean Virgina Tech gunman, the Filipino arrested by the FBI for a series of racist death threats, and most recently Jiverly Voong who opened fire on an Immigration Service Center in upstate NY. What is behind this string of incidents where Asian American men have unleashed murderous wrath on innocent people.
Let me begin by saying this is not an anti-Asian American rant. In fact, I acknowledge that the vast majority of Asian American men are hard-working, law-abiding, and upstanding citizens. But what is afoot here? I believe that some Asian men increasingly view this society as unjust and unfair to them who try to do all the right things.
Men's rights advocate, Winston Wu, is legendary for his diatribes against the social isolation to which American society relegates all but a few Asian men. They are expected to live up to unrealistic "positive" stereotypes, shunned by most America women as poorly endowed, and left on the sidelines unless they are needed for calculus advice or engineering services.
While none of the above justifies lashing out in violence, I believe the plight of Asian male isolation is at the root of this trend. Asian men are feeling the frustration of being confined to their stereotypical role and their pent-up misery is unleashed in the form of violence.
All we can hope is that this trend has come and gone. What we need to do is examine what role we play in helping to alleviate this frustration.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Over the years, much has been written about the American racial question and its impact on life in the United States. Conspicuously absent from the debate has been a recognition of how racism may now be but a convenient proxy for cultural marginalization. When racial minorities experience discrimination today, the cause is most likely rooted in differences of culture rather than differences in inherited physical characteristics. Perhaps the time has finally come to attribute American intergroup tensions to “culturism” vice racism. The difference is far more than semantic and it could suggest that America has unknowingly turned the corner in regard to relations between racial groups.
It is well settled that race has been the historically predominant factor negatively impacting the lives of racial minorities. However, upon close examination of the current condition of let’s say, blacks, it becomes increasingly clear that we are most likely to be discriminated against if and when we function outside of what is considered the cultural mainstream. If this is indeed true, the implications would be profoundly positive. Race is an immutable characteristic that one cannot change; culture however, is very changeable through familiarity and conditioning.
When whites discriminate against blacks today, it is likely that they do so because of negative perceptions of differing attitudes, behaviors and communication styles, whether real or imagined. It is rare today for whites to discriminate against blacks due solely to the physical traits associated with being black.
For example, there exists a sizable and growing class of affluent and successful blacks who have sufficiently adopted the practices and mores of mainstream society. Their adoptions of corporate language, etiquette, and values have equipped them to persevere in America’s competitive environment despite their racial differences. In contrast, the most underachieving strata of blacks tend to function farthest from the cultural mainstream core. Does it follow that a possible solution to the discrimination that blacks and others experience is mainstream acculturization?
Sadly, vehement and defiant resistance to mainstream acculturization remain the rule in many black communities. Years of continual exclusion from American mainstream life has given rise to a vibrant black sub-culture that, among other things, prides itself in rejecting vestiges of the cultural mainstream. That this rejection stifles upward mobility is seldom considered in some black communities. Therein dwells the new American dilemma. To expect these blacks to abandon their familiar culture in favor of a historically hostile mainstream would be truly ambitious. This difficulty notwithstanding, this should be increasingly acknowledged as a critical cultural goal to be pursued.
Some critics might consider this mainstream acculturization to be a form of denial of ethnic heritage. This need not be the case. Obtaining the ability to function in a different cultural milieu does not necessarily displace one’s original cultural disposition. For example, when foreign businessmen come to the United States, they quickly realize that they must adopt American corporate modes of dress, speech, behavior if they expect to make positive impressions in the business world. Are these foreign businessmen thereby rejecting the heritage from which they came? Surly they are not.
Further, notable figures like Denzel Washington, Condolezza Rice and Michael Jordan are respected and admired by Americans across the demographic spectrum. Are they any less Black by heritage and culture as a result? Again, this is not the case.
It would be disingenuous to suggest that racism no longer exists in American life. In some environments, it continues to be an everyday phenomenon. More often than not however, American racism now consists of slights and indignities rather than systemic measures used to subjugate people as in years past. This fact alone demonstrates just how far American society has come in lessening the relevance of race, per se, as a barrier to equal participation in the American dream. And despite the protestations racial pessimists would have us believe, we are obviously well along the right path.
Throughout its history, the n-word's usage was primarily meant to dehumanize, debase and dishonor African-Americans. In the "good old days," the word was used by bigots with either contempt or patronization. Its underlying meaning, however, was always the same.
Increasingly, many African-Americans use the n-word as if to say, "Yes, we are worthy of dehumanization, debasement and dishonor and we're darn proud of it." It's now even used to identify a friend or associate. What they don't acknowledge is how they still might fire off that word during heated altercations and conflicts, which suggest the word is not still quite the term of endearment that may maintain it is at other times.
Some within the ghetto subculture try to rationalize the continued use of the n-word by claiming that an alternate spelling - "nigga" - signifies a positive meaning.
Is the ghetto underclass that desperate for positivity? The word "sucker" has just as negative a connotation when it's spelled "sucka," so the alternate spelling argument holds no water with me. That these people can muster any justification at all for using the n-word is surprising, but that justification fails when it is juxtaposed with the vile historical origin of the word.
The truth of the matter surrounding the n-word is that the black ghetto subculture has willingly internalized its meaning. John McWhorter, author of acclaimed book Winning the Race: Beyond the Crisis in Black America discusses the concept of therapeutic alienation in black America. He says this alienation prioritizes social defiance over social progress, and manifests itself in the ever-present exaggeration of all that is negative in black America. By calling themselves and others the n-word, members of the black ghetto subculture reinforce and comfort themselves with the therapeutic alienation that is at the very core of that subculture.
Black America has historically allowed itself to be defined by its worst and least-respected citizens, not its best and brightest. This strategy, in my opinion, has actually hastened the attainment of some political and legal victories over the years. But black America now suffers from a dictatorship of the black lower class so well-entrenched it would make Karl Marx himself proud.
This black lower class has appropriated the n-word, and the ineffectual black middle and upper classes can do nothing to wrestle the animal back into the cage. Bill Cosby was skewered in his attempt to publically castigate the destructive practices of the black underclass.
We now have white youngsters who throw around the n-word with their friends of all ethnic backgrounds. I never thought I would live to see the day when a white teenage waiter would find it acceptable to use the term in my presence as a customer, but it happened. The teen explained that he meant no harm by using the word in my presence, and I that should "get over" my complex about the term. I opted to simply leave it to his employer to resolve his naiveté.
Clear-thinking people need to call out this new use of the term. Simply mentioning that it is unacceptable in polite usage will at least prompt some to reconsider its use. Alternatives should be suggested, and - where possible - people should be held accountable until they realize that even "nigga" is viewed by most as an offense ethic slur.
Unfortunately, thanks to the long marriage of mass media to black ghetto subculture, black Americans can increasingly expect to be greeted with "Hey, my nigga," "Good morning, my nigga" and "How can I help you, my nigga" all around the world. For that, blacks have themselves to blame for permitting it for so long.
But if there is one thing that whites enjoy that let's say blacks do not, it is respect for their individualism. By this I mean, a white person can choose to be a redneck, a wall street banker, a conservative, a liberal, or a hermit and society does not castigate them for not adhering to a predetermined role assigned to whiteness.
Blacks on the other hand, are expected to think a certain way, assume certain characteristics, and embody stereotype. For example, Barney Frank and Rush Limbaugh are polar opposites. One is a gay, left-wing Member of Congress and the other is a heterosexual, right-wing political pundit. They have nothing in common, yet they are both full-fledged whites. On the other hand, Al Sharpton and Clarence Thomas represent the same continuum in Black America. However, Thomas is castigated as "not authentically Black," as a racial turncoat, and as some sort of an anomoly by both many blacks and whites. Sharpton, eccentricities and all, would be viewed as the true black of the two.
What is going on here? On the black side, there is an unabashed collectivist mindset that deems any black person as a single part of the whole, a "brother" if you will.
On the white side, it is a bit different. Most whites take their cue about blacks from limited personal experience and politically correct practices demanded by blacks. Whites are thus conditioned and encouraged by blacks to view blacks in a collectivist manner.
Both are misguided. Until Americans extend the burden of individual assessment to persons of ALL ethnicities, the double standard will persist.